Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Search
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
 All Forums
 Hockey Forums
Allow Anonymous Posting forum... User Polls
 Does Fighting Prevent Injuries?

 NOTICE!! This forum allows Anonymous Posting.
 Registered members please login above or input your User Name/Password before submitting!
Authority:  UserName:  Password:  (Member Only !)
  * Anonymous Posting please leave it blank. your temporary AnonyID is
Format Mode:
Format: BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough Align LeftCenteredAlign Right Horizontal Rule Insert HyperlinkInsert Email Insert CodeInsert QuoteInsert List

* Forum Code is ON
Smile [:)] Big Smile [:D] Cool [8D] Blush [:I]
Tongue [:P] Evil [):] Wink [;)] Clown [:o)]
Black Eye [B)] Eight Ball [8] Frown [:(] Shy [8)]
Shocked [:0] Angry [:(!] Dead [xx(] Sleepy [|)]
Kisses [:X] Approve [^] Disapprove [V] Question [?]

  Check here to include your profile signature. (Member Only !)

T O P I C    R E V I E W
slozo Posted - 11/04/2009 : 09:30:33
In a discussion about whether or not fighting should be condoned in the NHL as it is today, one of the reasons given for "keeping it" is that fighting helps police the game. The contention by some is that by having enforcers willing to fight anyone who "crosses the line", that there are less dirty plays, and thus, the game is safer and better for it.

Do you think that condoning fighting in the NHL helps police the game of dirty players, or do you think that this is a ridiculous argument in light of the amount of injuries and dirty plays that continue on in the regular season?

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
8   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
slozo Posted - 11/05/2009 : 09:41:47
A quick question to those that voted that fighting DOES police the game . . .

. . . any actual statistics or facts to back that up?

Please, show me a comparison between, say, playoffs (where there is rarely fighting) and regular season, and the amount of injuries and dirty plays. I would love to see anyone try to prove to me that in the playoffs, there are more dirty plays as a result.

Anything other than vague feelings and predispositions due to constant repetition would be appreciated!

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
sharksfan44 Posted - 11/04/2009 : 15:31:40
i think fighting helps police the game, but only to a certain extent. its ok to defend a teammate if they r given a cheapshot but i notice a lot whenever there is a good clean hit, someone goes after the guy that delivered the hit. a perfect example of this was the huge hit willie mitchell had on toews, a completley clean hit, puck goes to sedin and he and bernier go down on a 2 on 0, BUT the play is whistled down because of a scrum going down in the center ice area.

fighting helps police the game, but sometimes i find that after every big hit, guys go after the guy who had the hit, even if its clean. and that shouldnt happen.
irvine Posted - 11/04/2009 : 14:51:28
It's hard to say either way for me. I see fighting at certain times as important, and policing the game to an extent.

At other times, it just seems like it has become part of the game that just isn't needed.

If I had to decide this very day, and it was up to me. I would keep fighting in the game, without further penalties or reprocoshins. But, only because I don't have an exact way to work discipline out for the fights that will still occur.

Alex116 Posted - 11/04/2009 : 14:01:57
I think it may help a bit, but only very little. I agree that fighting has become more of a side show and is used by the goons to get their team rev'd up or motivated!

Part of the instigator problem as well is that it's hardly ever called anymore. They had a stat on it last night and it's WAY down since the first couple seasons following the lockout. Even after clean hits it seems the guy who delivered it, knows he's gonna have to fight, so he's throwing his gloves off (except for Phaneuf) immediately and going at it with someone?

brentrock2 Posted - 11/04/2009 : 12:42:46
I said Hockey needs fights to police the game. Not much to say other than that.

Beans15 Posted - 11/04/2009 : 10:13:36
Fighting before the mid-90's was the way to police the game. The refs called the penalties, the players managed the code.

Since then, the 'code' is completely askew to the point where a solid body check results in 2, 5 and a game for a player fighting someone without merit. Also, when the old timers would police the code, there would be a fight. One would win, the other would lose, they would dust off and that matter was done. Two-5 minute penalties and that situations was over. Not like today where players never seem to move on from anything. Has there been a game in Ottawa where Steve Downie didn't get in at least one fight???

So the answer is no. Fighting does not reduce injuries, the players are not policing the code, and it really is a joke 95% of the time.
Guest2622 Posted - 11/04/2009 : 10:06:06
And thats precisely why they need to get rid of the instigator.

Its a ridiculous rule.
fat_elvis_rocked Posted - 11/04/2009 : 09:52:54
I think at one time, it did help do just that.

With the rules as they are now ie; the instigating minor, fighting has become not much more than a sideshow activity. Teams are actually dressing players for that function and not much more.

Another disturbing trend seems to be that clean hits are now being scrutinized by the 'enforcers' and players that are delivering clean hard hits, are now having to defend themselves afterwards.....silly.

If the league did a better job of disciplining those plays that are indeed deemed as 'dirty', perhaps the fighting could be scaled back. I am starting to agree with you on this Slozo, the idea of a hockey fight is starting to get a bit tedious, detracting from the game.

I do enjoy watching the odd tussle, but once thinking about it....why?

The players involved in the fights are seeming to have less and less to do with the any of the players that are playing dirty and more about showcasing the only talent some of these scrappers have on the ice.

Snitz Forums 2000 Go To Top Of Page